CHARGES DROPPED IN 20-YEAR OLD DEPORTATION CASE AGAINST PALESTINIAN ACTIVISTS

Long court battle ends with victory for immigrants

LOS ANGELES – The 20-year effort to deport two men over their alleged political
support of Palestinian self-determination officially came to an end today when the
nation’s highest administrative body overseeing immigration cases dismissed all charges
against Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh, members of a group of Palestinian student
activists arrested in January 1987, who became known as the LA8.

The action by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) closes one of the nation’s
longest-running and most controversial deportation cases, one that tested whether
immigrants have the same First Amendment rights as citizens.

Hamide and Shehadeh expressed both relief and happiness that the case is finally over but
also anger over what they believed to be a politically motivated, baseless prosecution.
“My family and I feel a tremendous amount of relief today,” said Hamide. “After 20
years, the nightmare is finally over. I feel vindicated at long last. This is a victory not
only for us, but for the First Amendment of the Constitution and for the rights of all
immigrants.”

Shehadeh agreed.

“I am extremely happy but do have mixed emotions,” Shehadeh added. “The
government was wrong for twenty one years. They robbed us, and our families, of the
best and most productive years of our lives. We are now free to continue living our lives,
acting on our beliefs; raising our families, supporting our communities, loving our
country, defending justice and the Constitution, and prospering as good citizens.”

The case against the pair began in January, 1987, when the government arrested them and
six others, who collectively came to be known as the LA 8, placed them in maximum
security prison, and accused them of having ties to a faction of the Palestine Liberation
Organization. The government alleged that Hamide and Shehadeh distributed
newspapers, held demonstrations and organized humanitarian aid fundraisers for
Palestinians, and that because these actions supported the PLO faction, they should be
deported. The men were initially charged with being associated with a Communist
organization, but when a court declared those charges unconstitutional, the government
filed new charges of material support for a terrorist group. The case went before the US
Court of Appeals four times, the Supreme Court once, and the Board of Immigration
Appeals multiple times.

The BIA dismissed the case at the request of the government, which agreed in a
settlement to drop all charges and not to seek removal of either of the men in the future
based on any of the political activities or associations at issue in the case. Hamide and
Shehadeh agreed not to apply for citizenship for three years, and to have several judicial
orders in the case vacated as moot.

Attorneys for the two hailed the government’s decision to drop the case as a victory the
First Amendment rights of all immigrants and a vindication of their clients’ actions.
“This is a monumental victory for all immigrants who want to be able to express their
political views and support the lawful activities of organizations in their home countries
fighting for social or political change,” said Marc Van Der Hout, of the National Lawyers
Guild. “Hamide and Shehadeh did nothing more than advocate for Palestinians’ right to
a homeland and support charitable causes and other legal activities in the Occupied
Territories. That should never have been cause for deportation charges in the first place.
The government’s attempt to deport them all these years marks another shameful period
in our government’s history of targeting certain groups of immigrants for their political
beliefs and activities.”

“We are overjoyed for our clients, who have spent twenty years fighting for the right to
stay in this country and speak and associate freely,” said David Cole, a professor at
Georgetown University Law School and volunteer attorney for the Center for
Constitutional rights. “And we commend the administration for recognizing that federal
anti-terrorism resources can be far better spent on other endeavors.”

The tipping point came in January 2007, when Immigration Judge Bruce J. Einhorn
dismissed the case finding that the government’s refusal to turn over evidence favorable
to the men violated the pair’s right to due process. The government’s refusal to comply
with his disclosure order, Einhorn wrote, is “a festering wound on the body of
respondents and an embarrassment to the rule of law.”

The case originally involved seven Palestinians and a Kenyan, the wife of Khader
Hamide. Late last year, Aiad Barakat, one of the eight, was sworn in as a U.S. citizen in
Los Angeles after federal judge Stephen Wilson rejected the government’s contentions
that he should be denied citizenship for his political associations. All of the others have
either been granted permanent residency or are on track to becoming permanent
residents.

“We are gratified that the government has decided to terminate this case and to spend its
resources on genuine threats to our national security,” said Ahilan T. Arulanantham, staff
attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. “Hamide and Shehadeh are law-abiding
immigrants who have lived here for more than a quarter century each and done nothing
wrong. We are glad that they will be able to live out the rest of their lives in peace in the
country they have called home.”

Van Der Hout and Cole have been representing the immigrants since the case began in
1987 along with Leonard Weinglass of Chicago Seven fame and investigator Phyllis
Bennis of the National Lawyers’ Guild.
###

We have now added advertising to help cover TAM's expenses, however we strive to avoid all inappropriate content. By clicking "ads by google" you can report problematical ads and help improve the system. If you have further comments or concerns regarding the ads, contact us.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this webpage do not necessarily reflect
the editorial position of The American Muslim, nor can the American Muslim
be held accountable for these views.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed an interest in said material
for research and educational purposes.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.